Do you believe that there are extremists in every group?

Moderates don’t. Or at least an extremely moderate moderate tends to not be a media hog. Small mercies.

Yes.

Do I believe that there are the same percentage of extremists in every group? No. Do I recognize that some extremists are more effective and powerful than others? Yes.

People often recognize extremists are representing the whole group because extremists tend to be vocal. And the moderates who disagree with the extremists are often not vocal enough in their condemnation (as well as the fact that media never pays attention to their condemnation when it happens).

You can have extreme moderates who only side dead center “just because” Everything in moderation including moderation.

I think the many of the ones that represent radical social change or a vector away from social convention do, and their extremism is often in direct proportion to the societal resistance they meet up against.

There is the vanguard, or the initial wedge. They are often made up of purists, uncompromising true believers, people that are energized through anger born of perceived injustice and a desire for change so strong that they are willing to put themselves forward and suffer the slings and arrows of resistance.

Then, as the movement matures, there is the core that feel betrayed by the moderation of the late comers, the or what becomes the more compromising moderate majority of the movement. The core minority are often the same people as the vanguard found in the first stages of the movement’s evolution and they feel compromising will pervert and soften the original goals (wise opposition can often exploit this stage to divide, confuse and weaken the movement). At the same time, they sometimes believe change will occur faster if more forceful tactics are used.

Society’s reaction to extremists is almost invariably hardened resistance. Society, by nature, is primarily interested the modicum of stability required to raise it’s children, the biological imperitive. Radical change, whether justified or not, threatens this interest. Extremist proponents within a radical movement will cause society to focus on protecting itself from this threat and not focus on any possible rationalizations that could allow adaptation to the desired change.

Does every group have a extremist element? I really don’t know if all of them do. But there are enough violent extremists to cause society to be well on their way to develop a whole school of thought on the subject.

Moderates do have extremists! I am so incensed by your position I may submit a harshly worded letter to the Times!

I have a difficult time defining the term “extremist”. The word seems to be used as a political tool to dismiss a group or political ideology rather than a helpful descriptive term.

@DoNotKnowMuch To me an extremist is a person who will take any means necessary to promote their ideals (including violence)

@NerdyKeith: “To me an extremist is a person who will take any means necessary to promote their ideals (including violence)”

This would seem to include the U.S. government (and nearly every administration). While I wouldn’t disagree with this, I don’t think this is what the term means generally.

Additionally, could the content of the ideal be relevant? What would an extreme pacifist look like?

Some groups do not have a philosophy that engenders extremism.
Extremists ARE a group.

@DoNotKnowMuch Well if it helps, I could give a more specific example of an extremist. Anders Brevik, is one of the more recent examples of an extremist.

@josie, it depends on the groups in question. Some groups are generalized by the mainstream media, in a very unfair and biased manner.

@NerdyKeith – I know of the examples that people describe. But I’m just struggling a bit with the term. Is the term always used to negatively describe someone or a group? Because when we use the word “extreme” in other contexts, it’s not always negative (“extremely helpful”, etc).

@DoNotKnowMuch I get where you are coming from, but I don’t think any other term would quite get the message across. If I use the term fundamentalist, that could be taken that I am attacking specific religious groups. If I use the word militant, that doesn’t always mean violence or aggression is involved.

So to me, in this particular contex “extremist” is the appropriate term. It is a universal term for most groups (be they religious, animal rights activists, political groups, other civil rights groups etc). I use this word to describe individuals who are representing their cause by taking drastic, dangerous, radical tactics. Which sometimes may even lead to acts of terrorism. That is specifically what I mean. I don’t think any other term can really carry that context effectively enough.

^ fair enough

Hmm…they’re might not be any extremist pacifists. Otherwise, yes.

I’m pretty sure you’ll always find someone on the tiny ends of the bell curve.